April 2018 Update

Cabinet Member Hides Truth on Fire Response Times

At last week’s West Sussex County Council meeting, the Conservatives disgracefully voted down a proposal to review fire & rescue service response times. Councillor Mike Glennon voiced concern that response times were increasing and asked for an independent review. This was supported by Independent, Labour, Liberal Democrat and UKIP Councillors.

Cabinet Member David Barling angrily suggested this was only proposed because it was election year, but Councillors have been asking for greater transparency for over two years. 

Mr Barling had promised to publish monthly details of response time failures in 2015, but he has failed to do so. It should also be noted that the proposer of the motion, and two Councillors who spoke in support, are not standing in the May elections.

The election is pertinent though, as it is David Barling who does not want the public to learn the true cost of Conservative cuts to the fire & rescue service. We should not be surprised though. When the Council was petitioned not to cut £1.6 million from the fire & rescue service budget, he callously told Councillors to ignore the 55 extra deaths predicted by their computer modelling.

David Barling also tried to suggest that this was just about the Selsey Academy fire and that firefighters had done their best. Yet, this was a blatant attempt to divert attention from the real problem, which is County wide. None of the Councillors criticised firefighters, indeed they all praised them, but Mr Barling tried to use firefighters as a shield for his failings.

County Council figures show the service is increasingly failing to meet response times, with a 7% increase in failures for life threatening fires since the cuts. Yet these averages hide the worst response times experienced in some areas.

Note: the target is 80%

Astonishingly Mr Barling claimed, “financial cutbacks have got absolutely nothing to do with this, even if they did exist”. Only a fool would believe that closing fire stations and cutting a quarter of the County’s frontline fire engines would not increase response times.

Councillor Andy Petch, who is not standing in May’s elections, said, “the only thing stretched about the claim that West Sussex response targets are stretch targets is the truth, because for nearly two thirds of the County we’ve got a very generous 14 minute target.” He added that, for up to 20% of calls, the response time could be even longer without missing the target (it only requires 80% success).  

Councillor Michael Jones said, “across Hampshire the target is 8 minutes, across Devon, Somerset, Kent, Norfolk and Surrey the target is 10 minutes, whilst less than 4% of West Sussex is deemed to deserve a 10 minute response or less”.

Sadly, Councillor Barling and his Conservative cronies only rejected the review to hide evidence that their so called fire & rescue service improvements were actually damaging cuts. A case of preferring to keep West Sussex residents in the dark for their own political self-interest.

Cabinet Member "hasn't got a clue"

At last week's West Sussex County Council meeting, Cabinet Member David Barling answered one question by saying, "I haven't got a clue". That seems to sum up his lax approach to questions on our fire & rescue service. He also failed to listen to the question properly, so his snide response was also inept. 

I thought it was about time readers heard how David Barling responds to legitimate questions and concerns from fellow County Councillors, so here is a recording with some photos of the people speaking. The questioner is Bernard Smith, County Councillor for Selsey.

  

You can watch the whole meeting on the West Sussex County Council website. This item is at 4.25.00 on that recording.

David Barling said, "I know what I am doing about Selsey", but failed to give any detail. Whilst the fire & rescue service has taken some action, there is no evidence that the Cabinet Member has done anything. It is time he told us exactly what personal action he has taken to deal with the part-time firefighter crisis at Selsey and across the County. If not, then he is admitting his abject failure.

You will also notice that, despite responsibility for the fire & rescue service in West Sussex resting with the Cabinet Member, David Barling tries to infer that the questioner has some responsibility. Sadly, that was nothing more than a cheap political trick, designed to deflect attention from his own failures.

Inaccurate and misleading information

In replies to written questions from Councillors, the Cabinet Member again gave inaccurate and misleading information. His reply to Councillor Andy Petch claimed that there were 10 fire engines at the Selsey Academy fire by 08:44, but the incident log shows only 7 had arrived by that time. It was actually 09:36 when the 10th fire engine arrived, some 52 minutes later than claimed. 

He then claims that all 14 fire engines were there by 10:35, but again that is wrong, as the 14th actually arrived at 10:48. The first emergency call was made at 07:52 and the arrival times of all the fire engines, as shown in the official incident log, were as follows:

It really is getting very difficult to believe anything the Cabinet Member says

Councillor James Walsh asked about a previous inaccurate answer from the Cabinet Member. In his reply he said that his answer referred to "responses into Bourne from Emsworth". If that was true, then why did he say, “Hampshire Fire & Rescue don’t actually come a great deal into West Sussex; approximately it’s about 50 times every year”? Perhaps he thinks other County Councillors do have access to a crystal ball, so that they can see what he is thinking whilst he is saying something completely different.

It is also interesting that he claims to have fire & rescue service statistics for a County Council Division, but has previously refused to provide Councillors with that level of detail on the grounds it would take too much officer time to prepare it.

Inferior Response Targets

Another written question from James Walsh asked, "The target response times in West Sussex for the Fire and Rescue Service to arrive at critical fires is set at 8-14 minutes, with a requirement to achieve that in at least 80% of cases. In similar rural counties the following targets are set, which apply to ALL locations in those fire service areas. Hampshire - 8 minutes; Kent, Norfolk, Surrey, Devon and Somerset - 10 minutes; in Suffolk and Oxfordshire - 11 minutes. Is the Cabinet Member happy that we have lower target figures than other similar counties, and that the latest figures show that 25% of incidents wait more than 13 minutes in West Sussex?" 

One of his excuses is that differing geography makes a difference. It is difficult enough to believe that any differing geography between West Sussex and Hampshire would make that much difference, but Devon & Somerset's geography should make it far more difficult for them to achieve their response targets. Yet the West Sussex maximum target response time is 40% longer than in Devon & Somerset.

So it does seem that the Cabinet Member is happy that West Sussex has inferior response targets and is also failing to achieve them.

April 2016 Fire Cuts Update

Items covered

One of Eddie Howland's superb images
showing West Sussex firefighters at work

1. Deceitful West Sussex Support for Hampshire Fire Cuts.
2. Has Murphy’s Law scuppered Mr Barling’s ‘Super-duper’ 6x6?
3. Appeal Decisions Show Cabinet Member’s Claim of Openness is False.
4. Hampshire cuts detail.
5. County Councillors can’t get details on your Fire & Rescue Service.
6. Worst ever response times.
7. Government want Police & Crime Commissioners to take over Fire & Rescue Service.
8. Real statistics.
9. Petition thank you & Councillor investigation refused.
10. Real firefighters care.

Deceitful West Sussex Support for Hampshire Fire Cuts

Last September County Council Leader Louise Goldsmith insisted that West Sussex would not make any comment on the Hampshire cuts. Yet within weeks a West Sussex officer had been seconded to Hampshire for six months to help them promote their cuts. Then the Hampshire consultation report clearly showed that, not only did West Sussex comment, they actually supported the cuts.

Were we deliberately misled in September, or did the Chief Fire Officer ignore the Leader’s policies and instructions? The Leader’s subsequent lame excuse for this - “at the time we weren't going to respond, but we did and we are where we are”.

The West Sussex submission even stated concerns about increased response times and a less effective response in parts of West Sussex, west of Chichester and Midhurst. Councillor Goldsmith refused to give any assurance that Councillors will now take action to fill the gap created by the Hampshire cuts.

"Concerns within West Sussex - increases in response times; and changes in the number of 
firefighters and type of equipment" (Hampshire Fire & Rescue Service Consultation Report)

Most Hampshire fire engines near the border are to be replaced with converted vans, often carrying just two firefighters. Yet, task analysis shows at least four firefighters are needed for safe operations at all incidents.

Has Murphy’s Law Scuppered Mr Barling’s ‘Super-duper’ 6x6?

In 2014, when residents expressed concerns about losing the second fire engines at Midhurst, Petworth and Storrington, they were told that much improved light, off road vehicles ‘would be in place’ before the cuts. Cabinet Member David Barling even talked about ‘super-duper’ vehicles, so where are they? 

Previous and existing light off road vehicles

The not very light 'super-duper' replacement (W H Bence photo)

Well the ‘super-duper’ 6-wheel drive version is reported to first have been overweight on the front axle and then, after re-building, overweight on the rear axle.

Is Murphy’s Law to blame, or is it the result of a poorly conceived idea, with inadequate research, and no business case, combined with poor project management?

All the indications suggest the latter, but WSCC is refusing to release all the information on the project. How much this fiasco has cost West Sussex residents has not been disclosed.

Murphy’s Law (if it can go wrong, it will go wrong)

Appeal Decisions Show Cabinet Member’s Claim of Openness is False

Cabinet Member David Barling has claimed that West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service ‘prides itself on its openness’. Yet decisions by the Information Commissioner and the General Regulatory Chamber show that he is wrong.

Two Freedom of Information appeal decisions, regarding WSF&RS, have confirmed that the County Council failed to comply with the legislation. A decision on a third is awaited.

"the Council did not properly apply section 12", "section 16 had not been complied with"

"It did not seem to us that the Council’s estimate had been shown to be reasonable"

"The Council must disclose all information held by it which falls within the Appellant’s refined request"

Even more astonishing was the Council’s response to a FOI request submitted by someone to all fire & rescue services. Dozens of them happily provided the information and London Fire Brigade even make theirs available on the internet. Yet WSF&RS refused to provide it and claimed that it would "threaten national security".

A ridiculous claim. The more likely reason is their paranoia about releasing any data that will confirm WSF&RS’s deteriorating performance.

Hampshire Cuts Detail

All border stations, except Havant, are staffed by part-time firefighters, yet there will be 24 less of them. Proper fire engines (minimum crew 4) being lost are:

Horndean – their fire engine will be replaced with an Intermediate Vehicle. This is a smaller fire engine that carries less water, equipment and firefighters (minimum crew 2).

Emsworth, Grayshott, Liphook - their fire engines will be replaced by First Response Vehicles (minimum crew 2). These carry even less water, equipment and firefighters than the Intermediate Vehicle.

Waterlooville, Petersfield, Havant – One proper fire engine kept, with the second one at each station being replaced with a First Response Vehicle (minimum crew 2).

Claims about new technology are exaggerated. It won’t save your life and is of no use at most incidents – you need at least 4 firefighters!

WSF&RS Task Analysis - used to assess the minimum number of firefighters

needed at incidents, just to enable essential, simultaneous tasks to be carried out safely. 

No incident type required less than four firefighters. 

Building fires required not less than nine firefighters. 

County Councillors Can’t Get Details on Your Fire & Rescue Service

In February 2015, Councillors James Walsh and Michael Jones submitted questions on the service’s performance. They were told that the information would be provided monthly, but none has been published.

They asked for information about response times not being met, part-time firefighter availability falling below target and when less than 28 fire engines are available. Something County Councillors should monitor and information that should be available to the public.

They were also told that details of fire stations responding to calls would be restored to the incident newsletter on the Council’s website. Although this was initially done, within months they stopped providing any details at all on the WSCC website.

County Councillor Andy Petch asked for performance information affecting the residents he represents. Astonishingly, he was accused of wasting officer time!

Worst Ever Response Times

House fires 13% worse - Outdoor fires 17% worse

(Increased Response Time change for first fire engine 2013-14 to 2014-15)

Government figures released last year show that West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service now has the worst response times in the south-east. Other fire & rescue service response times have deteriorated, but West Sussex, which once had the best response times, is now the worst.

The figures are average times for the arrival of the first fire engine. Yet the response time in many rural areas, and for second fire engines, appear to have increased significantly. Those response times have not been published.

Government Want Police & Crime Commissioners

to Take Over Fire & Rescue Service

This is the latest piece of nonsense from the Government that is likely to lead to further cuts. The idea is not supported by evidence and is just based on very naïve and seriously flawed ideas.

The police and the fire & rescue services necessarily have different functions, training, procedures, vehicles, IT, control rooms and location requirements. They do work together from time to time, and their procedures for doing so are effective, but most of their work does not involve the other service.

Police & Crime Commissioners are fully occupied in monitoring the police. They cannot take on the same role for fire & rescue without reducing their effectiveness at monitoring the police.

The system is also heavily dependent on the effectiveness of the individual. Some PCCs have been ineffective and putting them in charge of fire & rescue would be a disaster for both services.

With PCC elections in May it is worth mentioning that Labour and Liberal Democrat candidates in Sussex are on record as saying that they would not seek control of your fire & rescue service.

What is particularly worrying about these plans is that West Sussex County Council's mismanagement of the fire & rescue service only serves to help the Government’s case. If it is to be stopped, Louise Goldsmith and David Barling need to start running our fire & rescue service properly.

"The PCC webcasts her monthly Performance & Accountability Meetings with the Sussex Police Chief Constable. 
These meetings are an opportunity for the Commissioner to hold the Chief Constable to account
on behalf of the public  in an open and transparent way" (Sussex PCC website)

We can see and hear the Sussex PCC question the Chief Constable, but the meetings between the Chief Fire Officer and the Cabinet Member are held in secret. That is not effective scrutiny, accountability or monitoring of performance?

The National Audit Office also voiced concern last year - "The fire sector is different from other emergency services in not having an external inspectorate". Regarding local scrutiny they said, "There are shortcomings in these local arrangements", and "councillors generally lack independent technical support".

Real Statistics

There has been a lot of misleading spin about fewer calls. If you look at actual figures for the two incident types that most threaten life, and over a longer period, you will see a very different reality. These are ten year averages for the 1980s and for the last ten years in West Sussex.

Fires in the Home

Much smaller reduction than they claim

Road Traffic Collisions

More than doubled

Fire Engine Cuts

24% fewer fire engines available

Petition Thank You & Councillor Investigation Refused

Thank you to all who signed the petition against cuts to West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service, and to those who worked so hard collecting signatures. Nearly 4,000 people signed, which prompted a County Council debate.

Sadly, Cabinet Member David Barling insulted petitioners by dismissing their concerns as ‘disinformation’. Most of the information supporting the petition was official County Council information, so either that was official disinformation, or he was just resorting to bluff and bluster.

Most despicable was his callous disregard for those who will die as a result of the cuts. Council research predicted an extra death every other year, information that they tried to hide. Now Mr Barling simply told Councillors to “put it out of your heads”.

That's a disgusted me having to listen to Cabinet Member David Barling 

disgracefully telling County Councillors to put extra deaths "out of your heads"

Independent, Labour, Liberal Democrat and UKIP Councillors all voiced serious concerns, but the ruling Conservatives arrogantly ignored a proposal from Independent County Councillor Andy Petch for a Councillor Task Group to investigate. 

Only those with something to hide would oppose a proper investigation!

Conservative cuts and mismanagement have resulted in a rapidly deteriorating service. Poor fire engine availability, increased response times, training deficiencies and inadequate crewing are just some of the problems. Cutting fire crews by a quarter meant that this was sadly inevitable.

Mr Barling owes residents an apology for his disgraceful and disrespectful comments during the debate, and for covering up the service’s deteriorating performance.

Rest assured, we will continue to speak out on behalf of those who genuinely care about their fire & rescue service.

Real Firefighters Care

Despite cuts to West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service, firefighters still work hard to help everyone. They are disillusioned with a lack of support from County Councillors and the Government, but when you are in trouble they will still do their utmost to help you. You can always rely on those firefighters who arrive on fire engines to help you – eventually!

Will rescue arrive in time? It did here - just.

For More Information (click on links)

See other posts on: wsfrscuts.blogspot.com

Or join the discussion on Facebook:

West Sussex Fire & Rescue Stop the Cuts

Freedom of Information Requests at:

WhatDoTheyKnow 

County Council efforts to hide Fire & Rescue Service problems continue

I would first like to thank all those who signed the “Stop fire engine and firefighter cuts in West Sussex” petition, and those who helped collect signatures. More than 3,700 people signed and 3,349 were considered valid by the County Council. This was sufficient to require a debate at the County Council meeting today.

Whilst I was not surprised that they did not reverse the cuts, I was shocked by the appalling attitude of the Cabinet Member, David Barling. After I spoke he said, “that was the biggest piece of disinformation I have ever heard in this chamber”. Quite ironic, as virtually every statistic came from West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service and was obtained from their documents, Government documents or via Freedom of Information requests. You can read what I said below, and I am sure those in the know will recognise the accuracy of my presentation.

He also strongly opposed a proposal from Councillor Andy Petch, to establish a Task Group to consider the concerns, review the evidence and report back to the Cabinet Member. If he was so confident that his cuts were right, then he would surely have welcomed a review of the situation. So his negative response has only fuelled concerns that the fire & rescue service is in crisis.

Independent, Liberal Democrat, Labour and UKIP Councillors all spoke in support of a Task Group, but the Conservative Councillors forgot the public, fell in to line, and voted to prevent effective scrutiny. The proposal was lost 41 votes against, to 20 for, with 1 abstention.

Presentation before the debate

I took up this cause because I care about the fire service and I care about West Sussex. This petition, with well over 3,000 signatures shows that the public also care deeply about their fire service. I spoke to over six hundred people when collecting signatures and only one percent declined to sign. Many who did sign expressed their shock that you were even contemplating these cuts.

The issue of fire service cuts has been dogged by false claims and half-truths. The result being that Councillors and the public were misled in to believing cuts could be achieved without damaging the service.

Councillor Rae, who led the review group, insisted that computer modelling showed 3 extra deaths in 100 years, when it was actually 55 extra deaths. Not his fault, as he had been misinformed. Shameful claims during the consultation that the service had ‘significantly reduced the number of people killed in fires’. Yet, comparing the 5 years before 2009, when the Chief Officer came to West Sussex, to the next five years, that ‘significant reduction’ was actually a 200% increase.

Then there’s the fraud that less calls mean you need less fire engines and firefighters. We’re not talking about a 24-hour supermarket needing lots of staff during the day on Saturday, but very few at 2 am. The need for 10, 50, or a 100 firefighters can arise at any time of the day, and on any day of the year. You don’t cut your insurance, because your neighbours have made fewer claims. It is equally ridiculous to cut the number of fire crews, and make people wait longer for help to arrive.

You’ve been misinformed about Gatwick. You, the Fire Authority, are legally responsible for providing fire & rescue service response to emergencies at the airport. Their private fire service is only responsible for first response to a crashed aircraft at the airport. They depend on your firefighters arriving quickly to rescue survivors, and they have no responsibility for any other emergencies at the airport, that is entirely your responsibility.

I do sympathise with Councillors. You can’t hope to make proper decisions if you aren’t given accurate information. I’ve even received figures that differed to ones given to you, and I was astonished to be told that mine were correct and yours were not. The Council’s Leader wants the Council to be open and transparent, but her fire & rescue service is clearly not on message. Even Councillors seem unable to get reliable information.

Cabinet Members say that Chief Officers are their professional advisers and they have to accept their advice, but that means there is no effective oversight or scrutiny? Something recently confirmed by the National Audit Office who criticised the lack of independent monitoring for the fire & rescue service.

There have been too many decisions that seem to defy common sense:

• New retained firefighter contracts that discourage increased availability, with the result that less fire engines are available.
• Failure to engage with local communities, councils and businesses to address retained recruiting problems.
• Failure to take opportunities for savings through mergers and cooperation with others.
• A Crewing Optimisation Group that is not available for all occasions when there are crewing shortages.
• Cuts so deep that excessive amounts of overtime are needed just to maintain minimum crewing.
• Frequent minimum crewing that restricts the tactics crews can employ at incidents.
• A shortage of personnel that restricts effective training, undermines essential skills and results in qualifications lapsing.
• Vulnerable people, who have automatic alarms as they are less likely to be able to escape a fire unaided, no longer get a full response of two fire crews to rescue them.
• Aircraft at Gatwick carry many more passengers, potentially hundreds of people in need of rescue, but the response to the most serious alert has been cut from 10 to 6 fire engines.
• The Heavy Rescue Tender is essential if there is a crash, but this is no longer sent to the airport. Even worse, when both Crawley’s fire engines respond to the alert, incredibly, no one is left to crew the Heavy Rescue Tender.
• Midhurst firefighters have a large rural area with many narrow lanes and tracks. For over 60 years they have had a Land Rover sized vehicle to access areas that a fire engine can’t. Now, not only have they been given the biggest fire engine they’ve ever had, but the Land Rover is to be replaced with that cumbersome vehicle you saw at your last meeting. Although apparently, it can’t actually be used as, despite being built to your requirements, it is overweight on the front axle.

I read recently that the Council leader had called Government plans for local welfare assistance “a cut too far.” She is quite right, but this Council’s cuts to our fire & rescue service are also, very much, a cut too far. They need to be reversed before lives are lost.

Summing up after the debate

Mr Barling’s approach was a little unfortunate, but I do sympathise with him, he’s again been misinformed. Just take the 55 extra deaths that you were told to ignore, that came from your computer modelling of the effects, not just fire deaths, but deaths in road crashes, because of the extra time it takes the fire service to get there. They are proper figures, they can all be checked and I wish you would check them. Most of the figures have come from the Government and most of the figures the Government have got came from West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service.

West Sussex once had a fire service the equal of any in the country. Now it’s a sorry shadow of its former self. Firefighters are just as committed to the task, but cuts have seen the service coming ‘top’ for all the wrong reasons. Most fire deaths and injuries per head of population in the southeast, worst response times in the southeast and so on.

Since 1948 the County Council has been prudent with regard to fire service funding. Never excessive, always just enough to ensure an effective response anywhere in the County. Until 2010 that is, when the first cuts began to reduce the service’s effectiveness and then, earlier this year, more severe cuts that resulted in the worst protection for the people of West Sussex since before 1939.

It’s been suggested that the service’s management team are happy with these cuts, but let’s consider their motivation. Is it in their interest to tell you that they can’t make savings without affecting the service provided? Is it in their interest to confess that cuts are causing problems? It would take a very brave man to tell the current Council Leader that. 

We hear a lot about prevention, but prevention is not new. Efforts to stop fires occurring pre-date organised fire services. Trading one off against the other is never the answer. Does prevention save lives? Well we hope so, but there is no evidence to confirm that. Yet there is ample evidence that response times have a direct effect on the number of lives saved.

The risk of needing to be rescued from a fire, flood or crash remains for all of us. No amount of prevention will remove that risk, after all even the Chief Fire Officer recently discovered he had a faulty tumble dryer in his home that posed a serious fire risk.

In a recent YouGov survey, 95% of the public consider a rapid response from the fire service a high priority. The cuts have seriously jeopardised that rapid response, especially in rural areas. It is time for that rapid response to again become the number one priority.

Professional firefighters are telling you that the cuts have bitten too deep, the public is telling you that they don’t want these cuts, so please don’t bury your heads in the sand.

Please take a detailed look at these concerns, seek reliable, independent evidence and then provide the funding to restore a truly safe and effective fire & rescue service for the people of West Sussex.

Good and bad news from the County Council meeting

I had hoped to watch the live broadcast of the County Council meeting on Friday, but apparently there was a technical problem and they did not broadcast it. I have however had some feedback on the meeting from various people. 

I was particularly interested in the meeting as the agenda included a motion on keeping control of the Fire & Rescue Service and opposing government plans to pass control to the Police & Crime Commissioner. It appears that even the Conservative Councillors realise the proposals are ridiculous.

Councillors were also shown Midhurst’s new fire engine and the new 6x6 vehicle. No doubt they were told how wonderful the vehicles were and of course they would not know anything different, just that these were two shiny new vehicles. I am sure the Scania fire engine is fine, but I suspect it is the biggest fire engine ever allocated to Midhurst. The extra water and equipment will I am sure prove useful, but there are a lot of narrow roads on their patch, which may create problems. As for the 6x6, well for an ill-conceived, poorly planned vehicle that is unlikely to perform any of its various roles well, I am sure it looked clean.

Worryingly it seems that Cabinet Member David Barling thinks that availability in the Mid Sussex area is good. Councillor Andy Petch had submitted a request for some statistics about fire cover in his area. That ‘good’ availability only averages 94% for 3 of the 8 fire engines (one each at Burgess Hill, East Grinstead and Haywards Heath). For the other five fire engines the average is just 42%. So unlike other parts of West Sussex, not one with 100% availability. Goodness only knows how bad things would have to get for Mr Barling to think there was a problem.

It also appears that they could not answer some questions for lack of records and others took a very long time to compile. Bearing in mind that this was basic performance information, you have to ask if the Council is monitoring the fire & rescue service at all. One of the big issues recently has been fire engines being moved to other areas for standby, because of crewing problems. Clearly when they are retained (part-time) crewed pumps there is a significant cost, but they clearly do not monitor that cost, because they have no records of those standbys.

At the February meeting Councillors were told, in written answers, that availability and response time failures would be published monthly. They have not been and perhaps the answers, and non-answers, that Councillor Petch received gives a clue to their reluctance to publish them. Not only are the availability figures poor, but it seems that just in the Mid Sussex area over six months, there have been ten failures to meet the response times for critical fires and fifteen failures for critical special services. There have also been 35 requests for East Sussex appliances to attend incidents in Mid Sussex.

No wonder they don’t like people asking questions.

Incidentally, this is what they are replacing the Land Rover at Midhurst with. The Land Rover they use to go off road, to access narrow paths, to negotiate tight turns, to cross uneven ground, to cross light weight bridges etc. I cannot see this doing it anywhere near as well as the Land Rover or the Steyr Puch Super G's currently in service.

Cabinet Member Gambles with Lives of Vulnerable People

For those who did not see the County Council meeting today, there were some probing questions about WSFRS from County Councillors James Walsh and Andy Petch. Unsurprisingly the answers from Cabinet Member David Barling were inadequate and evasive. 

James Walsh pointed out that the Cabinet Member’s report claimed fire deaths had halved since the 1980s, when they are only down by a quarter (average down from 8 to 6 per year). Strangely, David Barling then rambled on saying that fire deaths were not increasing, but were falling. Of course James Walsh had not said they were increasing, he had just highlighted the Cabinet Member’s poor arithmetic. 

The report also claimed that Fire and Rescue’s prevention campaigns were responsible for the reduction, even though the main factors are social, technological and legal changes. Such things as reduced use of open fires, paraffin heaters, chip pans, smoking materials, better means of escape, better furniture and clothing regulations etc. have all had more effect on the number of fire deaths than prevention campaigns have. 

It seems that WSCC try to claim all the credit when there are any improvements, but deny any responsibility when things get worse. As they did when, against the national trend, fire deaths in West Sussex increased every year from 2008/09 to 2013/14. 

Both James Walsh and Andy Petch highlighted the appliance availability problem. Instead of the ‘30 pumps available on a regular basis’ promise, made during the cuts debate, numbers have been much lower, including as low as 16. Andy Petch also referred to the particular problems in Mid Sussex with, on occasions, only one of the eight fire engines having a crew.

David Barling claimed the average is 28 available, and is the same as it was before the cuts. So he has at least admitted that taking wholetime firefighters from wholetime stations to boost crewing at retained stations has had little or no effect. It has of course cut the crews on most wholetime crewed appliances from five to four, making the job more difficult and less safe for them. 

James Walsh also reminded the Cabinet Member that he had said in February that fire engine availability data would be published monthly. He asked why it had not been provided, but got no answer. 

The Cabinet Member’s report said that WSFRS has helped to protect thousands of vulnerable residents with Community Fire Link smoke detectors. Andy Petch pointed out that, even with those alarms, vulnerable residents are still more likely to need rescuing from fires. He asked for an assurance that at least nine firefighters on two pumps would be sent to such calls. He did not get it. 

It seems that David Barling would rather gamble by sending just one pump, hoping that the call is a false alarm. He rambled on about modern radios and said that the officer-in-charge can ask for help if he needs it when he gets there. Completely ignoring of course that this will increase the danger to vulnerable people and to firefighters. 

It is good to see some Councillors continuing to highlight the problems, even if David Barling continues to opt for the see no problem, hear no problem and speak no problem approach.